Um, I do have experience in other cultures. In the Orient-West, and the ASEAN countries. We can agree that survival instinct is worriesome for AI. Survival instinct is strong among living things, but how AI reacts to stimuli is a direct function of its native programming, just as the reason you breath unconsciously is part of your native programming in the limbic.
It's my worry that bad AI logic makes uncontrollable actions, in the sense of not benefiting mankind/humans or the sustainability of the rest of the planet when viewed on a higher scale.
Consider what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Civility, generosity to complete strangers, capacity to hold in lust desires (at least some of us), and the ability to recognize sustainability, when much of capitalistic and corporate cultures are strictly in it for the returns on investment.
Who do you want coding this? Trump? Sanders? Pick any politician or none at all. What other values are important? Under what circumstances and contexts will the values be altered, and for what innate rationale? Yes, the world can be dog eat dog, but is that the image, the logic you want in the AI that will be making decisions about YOU?
We know in certainty that there humanity can be divided into those feeling love and guilt, and those that are narcissistic, even psychopathic. Which one of those do you want doing surgery on you, or as an adversary on the battlefield? You make this sound easy, and it is not easy. Greed is not a value-- it is the distinct lack of a value-- charity.
It's not free will that's the problem. And intelligence is not intelligence, you conflate so much. Intelligence isn't the crux of moral choices, it's instinct survival and altrusim. Do you have an altruism algorithm?
What of the war machines, the killing machines? Everyone making them will always claim that theirs is necessary because of course, they're in the right.
Medical apparatus-- who plays God here? My algorithm or yours? AI has dropped millions of tons of rockets into the drink. AI has misrouted millions and millions of mailed letters.
You trust this stuff far too much, and there is much more than "solely based on the aide is like prevneint a child from existing...." to fear. Instead, coders flatter themselves that they can provide the agar, the basic ingredients of intelligence, sit back, and watch algorithms grow into something good for mankind. Horseshit.
You can keep shifting phase angles, halting the blinding attack, but there may be a pre-emptive method as you mention of pre-arranging sufficient tautology of concurrent streams where a valid stream is channelized, not unlike how frequency-shift-keying works. n>2 is a possibility, and perhaps even desired.
Go ahead, blind the detectors, make them think they're valid, except that ones that stop you aren't the ones you desired until your blind so many channels that the time domain rats out your actual physical location in the chain, and we send Guido.
Could be onerous, might be someone slipped in a fast fix because a big customer bitched that their ancient stuff wouldn't work, so how 'bout an exception?
The pending retirement of SHA-1 is just such an exception-handling nightmare.
Could also have been a stupid patch for a genuine bug.
And perhaps, their random-number seed generation was actually pseudo-random, and predictable. This is the problem with closed source: you don't know and must trust vendors to do the right thing. At least in this case, it *appears* they're doing the right thing. A small, downside possibility is that the new code brings its own problems. We can't and won't know.
No, CDNs really count. If you distribute lots of content, and don't want to get bagged with routing issues, you use a cache of content on hot networks-- or suffer the consequences of pissed off users.
Universities do this, a hotbed of NetFlix users, so it's not just a carrier "enhancement". Get the CDNs enabled, and everything but peer (think onion routers) becomes more evenly distributed without stepping on network neutrality. The problem is: someone has to pay for it and know where/when to deploy them. Stickier issues are what to do with DNS, and how to shift resources across timezones to take advantage of them.
It's not as simple as the poster describes, and while T-Mobile's circular answers are opaque, behind the scenes are a lot of CDN deployment deals going on. In a star-based/hierarchical network that they use, distribution becomes tricky-- not that I'm defending them. Only demand or regulation will change them, however.
You mean you didn't choose the Official Network Neutrality Test Site? No wonder your speed sucked.
Underneath, deep packet inspection is going on, except to those choice testing websites because we all know that there's no real data of any resaleable significance going to *those*.
Like a zillion other hacks, the probability of an attack is perhaps low.
The probability increases when you get a payload as a.jar or zip or whatever in an email that drops a json or REST sequence onto your network, taking down an industrial control set-- in this case instructions to do stupid stuff-- to gear you or your company owns.
The important conclusion for this is that people are turning out super-crap code, and although various protections might help, most civilians don't know what those protections are. Hell, we can't even get people to use basic security on their WiFi APs.
You therefore wonder-- Ingenuity? Not here.....
There are a handful of coders represented here that need to be taken behind the woodshed or find new gigs on Thai fishing boats.
You haven't been to a hamfest recently. They're all over the country, and I have yet to see one with out tubs of great stuff, although surface mount technology is tough for guys with 100w soldering irons.
There are tons and tons of parts available, and an increasing amount of pi, working motherboards with fast 32-bit AMD/Intel CPUs for $1. Power supplies, and lots of networking and WiFi gear almost for scrap prices. Bring a cart. You don't have to be a licensed ham radio person to have a blast.
I jumbled the order for emphasis, and yes, you're right. It's nihilistic at best, to punish open WiFi AP owners, and stanching Tor is another exercise in WTF. Know that the scared politicians are doing the same thing in the USA, but on a different scale: they sift everything, including this text. Why doesn't Slashdot use https?
These nice math people solved a big problem! People had tried to figure it out for gosh, fifty years! Then they did it. The problem was like if you had lots of apple orchards, each with different apples. Birds would fly over and poop on them sometimes. You wanted to find out which birds were pooping on what trees and also which apples on which branches were clean, and all this, over a period of time in which orchards. Tough, huh?
They describe how. Five different, round-about ways of deriving positive intersecting matrices are described. They develop a method of defining boundary equations for the matrices, so as to prove an interesting algorithm that hadn't been able to be solved via an algorithm, just conjectures. They define this interesting boundary equation to box-in the conjectures, so to speak, and by defining the algorithmic domain, offer a proof that it works.
Profit!
I'm not sure how just yet.... but Profit!
If someone else can explain it succinctly, give it a shot.
Many variables here, including whose context you're speaking from, e.g. the government, the opposition, or others. The classicist view becomes increasingly meaningless, as much is the result of SCOTUS precedent, if/where available.
With no explicit right to privacy, and the other amendments including the 14th, encryption is vulnerable in terms of mentality. Where a court order exists, and doesn't violate the 5th, I see the mandate to turn over keys. Lacking that, I'm in favor of co--opting memes, like conflating gun rights to privacy rights, as both aren't necessarily explicit, except in the hearts of liberty.
How dare you use facts to get in the way of a good meme.
However, that same Constitution allows you to also be allowed Free Speech (First Amendment) making your encrypted speech still yours in freedom.
Then there's that pesky Fourth Amendment which requires security, as in "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" including the ability to reveal your assets, which I'll cover next.
Ok, head-desk time, that old Fifth Amendment, which among other things, "nor shall (you) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So is there a tie? Yes, it's called The Bill of Rights and its aim is freedom and liberty.
Ostensibly erudite reporter was given inside information with the carefully planted bugaboo word: encryption, so as to allow the information provider to cast a negative shadow upon encryption, so as to favor the arguments of those tireless government officials that are seeking to permit governmental backdoors into encryption methods.
Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.
In either case, it was seemingly rapidly corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus is the crux of the Heechee Series, and other sci-fi tomes. When they can generate their own juice, look out!
Um, I do have experience in other cultures. In the Orient-West, and the ASEAN countries. We can agree that survival instinct is worriesome for AI. Survival instinct is strong among living things, but how AI reacts to stimuli is a direct function of its native programming, just as the reason you breath unconsciously is part of your native programming in the limbic.
It's my worry that bad AI logic makes uncontrollable actions, in the sense of not benefiting mankind/humans or the sustainability of the rest of the planet when viewed on a higher scale.
Consider what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Civility, generosity to complete strangers, capacity to hold in lust desires (at least some of us), and the ability to recognize sustainability, when much of capitalistic and corporate cultures are strictly in it for the returns on investment.
Who do you want coding this? Trump? Sanders? Pick any politician or none at all. What other values are important? Under what circumstances and contexts will the values be altered, and for what innate rationale? Yes, the world can be dog eat dog, but is that the image, the logic you want in the AI that will be making decisions about YOU?
We know in certainty that there humanity can be divided into those feeling love and guilt, and those that are narcissistic, even psychopathic. Which one of those do you want doing surgery on you, or as an adversary on the battlefield? You make this sound easy, and it is not easy. Greed is not a value-- it is the distinct lack of a value-- charity.
It's not free will that's the problem. And intelligence is not intelligence, you conflate so much. Intelligence isn't the crux of moral choices, it's instinct survival and altrusim. Do you have an altruism algorithm?
What of the war machines, the killing machines? Everyone making them will always claim that theirs is necessary because of course, they're in the right.
Medical apparatus-- who plays God here? My algorithm or yours? AI has dropped millions of tons of rockets into the drink. AI has misrouted millions and millions of mailed letters.
You trust this stuff far too much, and there is much more than "solely based on the aide is like prevneint a child from existing...." to fear. Instead, coders flatter themselves that they can provide the agar, the basic ingredients of intelligence, sit back, and watch algorithms grow into something good for mankind. Horseshit.
You can keep shifting phase angles, halting the blinding attack, but there may be a pre-emptive method as you mention of pre-arranging sufficient tautology of concurrent streams where a valid stream is channelized, not unlike how frequency-shift-keying works. n>2 is a possibility, and perhaps even desired.
Go ahead, blind the detectors, make them think they're valid, except that ones that stop you aren't the ones you desired until your blind so many channels that the time domain rats out your actual physical location in the chain, and we send Guido.
Could be onerous, might be someone slipped in a fast fix because a big customer bitched that their ancient stuff wouldn't work, so how 'bout an exception?
The pending retirement of SHA-1 is just such an exception-handling nightmare.
Could also have been a stupid patch for a genuine bug.
And perhaps, their random-number seed generation was actually pseudo-random, and predictable. This is the problem with closed source: you don't know and must trust vendors to do the right thing. At least in this case, it *appears* they're doing the right thing. A small, downside possibility is that the new code brings its own problems. We can't and won't know.
No, CDNs really count. If you distribute lots of content, and don't want to get bagged with routing issues, you use a cache of content on hot networks-- or suffer the consequences of pissed off users.
Universities do this, a hotbed of NetFlix users, so it's not just a carrier "enhancement". Get the CDNs enabled, and everything but peer (think onion routers) becomes more evenly distributed without stepping on network neutrality. The problem is: someone has to pay for it and know where/when to deploy them. Stickier issues are what to do with DNS, and how to shift resources across timezones to take advantage of them.
It's not as simple as the poster describes, and while T-Mobile's circular answers are opaque, behind the scenes are a lot of CDN deployment deals going on. In a star-based/hierarchical network that they use, distribution becomes tricky-- not that I'm defending them. Only demand or regulation will change them, however.
You mean you didn't choose the Official Network Neutrality Test Site? No wonder your speed sucked.
Underneath, deep packet inspection is going on, except to those choice testing websites because we all know that there's no real data of any resaleable significance going to *those*.
Like a zillion other hacks, the probability of an attack is perhaps low.
The probability increases when you get a payload as a .jar or zip or whatever in an email that drops a json or REST sequence onto your network, taking down an industrial control set-- in this case instructions to do stupid stuff-- to gear you or your company owns.
The important conclusion for this is that people are turning out super-crap code, and although various protections might help, most civilians don't know what those protections are. Hell, we can't even get people to use basic security on their WiFi APs.
You therefore wonder-- Ingenuity? Not here.....
There are a handful of coders represented here that need to be taken behind the woodshed or find new gigs on Thai fishing boats.
You haven't been to a hamfest recently. They're all over the country, and I have yet to see one with out tubs of great stuff, although surface mount technology is tough for guys with 100w soldering irons.
There are tons and tons of parts available, and an increasing amount of pi, working motherboards with fast 32-bit AMD/Intel CPUs for $1. Power supplies, and lots of networking and WiFi gear almost for scrap prices. Bring a cart. You don't have to be a licensed ham radio person to have a blast.
Um, no. Look at your browser's security icon.
How silly.
Why shouldn't what's posted here be private content, vetted by your auth? Must all of the Internet's conversations be public record?
I jumbled the order for emphasis, and yes, you're right. It's nihilistic at best, to punish open WiFi AP owners, and stanching Tor is another exercise in WTF. Know that the scared politicians are doing the same thing in the USA, but on a different scale: they sift everything, including this text. Why doesn't Slashdot use https?
You type it in the text box.... and the text box renders it like it's 1999.
And add character sets that work on Slashdot.
So much for egalité, fraternité, liberté.
These nice math people solved a big problem! People had tried to figure it out for gosh, fifty years! Then they did it. The problem was like if you had lots of apple orchards, each with different apples. Birds would fly over and poop on them sometimes. You wanted to find out which birds were pooping on what trees and also which apples on which branches were clean, and all this, over a period of time in which orchards. Tough, huh?
No one has a sense of humor anymore, especially when ti comes to algorithms proven by boundary equations.
They describe how. Five different, round-about ways of deriving positive intersecting matrices are described. They develop a method of defining boundary equations for the matrices, so as to prove an interesting algorithm that hadn't been able to be solved via an algorithm, just conjectures. They define this interesting boundary equation to box-in the conjectures, so to speak, and by defining the algorithmic domain, offer a proof that it works.
Profit!
I'm not sure how just yet.... but Profit!
If someone else can explain it succinctly, give it a shot.
Many variables here, including whose context you're speaking from, e.g. the government, the opposition, or others. The classicist view becomes increasingly meaningless, as much is the result of SCOTUS precedent, if/where available.
With no explicit right to privacy, and the other amendments including the 14th, encryption is vulnerable in terms of mentality. Where a court order exists, and doesn't violate the 5th, I see the mandate to turn over keys. Lacking that, I'm in favor of co--opting memes, like conflating gun rights to privacy rights, as both aren't necessarily explicit, except in the hearts of liberty.
How dare you use facts to get in the way of a good meme.
However, that same Constitution allows you to also be allowed Free Speech (First Amendment) making your encrypted speech still yours in freedom.
Then there's that pesky Fourth Amendment which requires security, as in "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" including the ability to reveal your assets, which I'll cover next.
Ok, head-desk time, that old Fifth Amendment, which among other things, "nor shall (you) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So is there a tie? Yes, it's called The Bill of Rights and its aim is freedom and liberty.
Well, now there's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...? which seems to be the NYT's contribution to the Obama Administration's propaganda arsenal.
Read clearly the first paragraph to contrast the second one.
It has all the earmarks of a plant, but no one has come forward to say why the retraction was done, so far as I know. Seems suspicious.
Perhaps it was more like this:
Ostensibly erudite reporter was given inside information with the carefully planted bugaboo word: encryption, so as to allow the information provider to cast a negative shadow upon encryption, so as to favor the arguments of those tireless government officials that are seeking to permit governmental backdoors into encryption methods.
Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.
In either case, it was seemingly rapidly corrected.
No, this is a fundamental and profound difference: safety comes first, not as a feature, It's an immature view not to consider safety as fundamental.